05/12/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Background: WAGES By: AND BENEFITS FOR EXEMPT EMPLOYEES Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator CASE # Enclosed for yotlr review are the point and comparison sheets for the exempt wage consideration for 1992. *lgl~ ttb~this point, Council has forestalled consideration of this package in that it was hoped that th(AF, $CIvI~ package and the exempt package could be done at the same time. As you are aware, AI~S~ME recently filed for mediation with the first meeting scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, MaE 1~,-~,.1992. It is contemplated that there may be several sessions with the mediator in that APSCMI~ a~,~ management appear to be some distance apart. You will also note that the proposal to AFS~ME was a 5.6% personnel budget increase and a 5.24% wage increase of which 3.19% was a col~parable worth increase reflecting years, class and market adjustments. The balance of 2.95q~ was for performance and goals. The exempt proposal in front of you this evening is a 4.72% personnel budget increase and a 4.47% increase in payroll. It is the management ~os!tion that the exempt package compares favorably with the AFSCME package as originally prO')osed by management and it includes the performance functions which Council has stated as a Pri :,ri}y within the pay plan for 1992. In considering whether this package should be passed by Council, I have noted the following: 1 ) There ,appears to be agreement within the group on the package as presented. 2) The grDup ,~s concerned w~th~n th~s contract year as well as with future contract years that they not be relegated to a position of waiting for an AFSCME agreement or an agreement with any ~ther labor union in that the5, do not have an ability to control the settlement, or lack th3re°f, of any particular group other than their own. 3) It was isuggested by members of the exempt group that if AFSCME does not eventually settle for ~he perfom'mnce package, as presented, that this may in fact be as positive as the alternaiive in that it will allow for the exempt folks to be a test group. 4) As regort,ed previously, it is important to show publicly that the City Council and the Departtne~)t Managers are in support of performance pay. 5) The increase atn'ibutable to tenure class and market are below the adjustments that are being made ih o~her cities in this year. Concerns relative to settlement or reasons for restraint or delay in settlement include: 1 ) AFSCME:will attempt to peg their eventual increase on the entire exempt package as well as the LE,LS.Package and not just the package attributable to tenure class and market, although I beliewe fi'om a management perspective, this is defensible. 2) As likely .as not, the AFSCME package will result in a lower cost than management previously offered in that without the performance plan, Council has suggested that we would ~bffOr just a cost of living increase commensurate with what the other Stanton V cities betwee~ 10i000 and _0,000 are offering ~n th~s year which equates to approximately 2.5%. Theref6re,r it n'fight be perceived that the exempt package is too high, however, again the tenure !class and market portion of the package is below the Stanton cost of living adjustments and it is only due to the performance provisions that increases are suggested on averagd above these levels. *Shown with'PersOnnel Coordinator Adjustment